LSP45: Atheism: You Think You've Escaped the Perils of Religion . . . So Why Isn't Your Life Getting Better?

If the militant atheists are right, and the world's greatest ills can be blamed on religion, then I'm wondering why, at the close of 2015, when more people than ever are rejecting faith and religion and relationship with God for the simple logic of atheism, the world is looking less loving, not more loving?

Could it be that militant atheism, in its religiosity, pure ideology, anger, lack of empathy, and anthropocentric hubris, is simply a new manifestation of the same neurophysiological patterning that leads to fundamentalism of all stripes?

Could it be that militant atheism is a fundamentalist philosophy with characteristics no different, say, than the Middle East movement known as ISIL, which purports to be a religious movement, but is really just a haven for human beings who have damaged their brains and have turned themselves into the Four Horsemen of the Dark Psychological Tetrad (Psychopathy, Narcissism, Sadism, and Machiavellianism)?

Black Beauty T. Rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta. Sure, it's unrealistic and unscientific for Creationists to deny the evidence of the fossil record and claim that Planet Earth is only a few thousand years old. No argument there. But it's also unrealistic and unscientific for militant atheists to deny the evidence of the quantum record, which speaks of weird phenomena such as non-locality, the conscious observer, bosons, fermions, and magnetism, not to mention all the dark matter and dark energy we know almost nothing about. From my perspective, the atheist belief that "dumb luck" led to the evolution of the universe requires a much higher degree of sanctimonious denial than the Creationist position could ever muster. Are we humans really so incredibly amazing that the entire universe evolved just so we could have consciousness with all the rights and privileges of the conscious observer effect? Really? We can't even manage our own bank accounts, let alone act as wise custodians of Planet Earth, so why would the universe evolve to give humankind the unique right to mess with the laws of physics? Photo credit JAT 2015.

The militant atheists I've known (and I've known quite a few) strut and preen in exactly the same harsh way as the spiritual and theological narcissists I've known. They're certain of their rightness, certain of their objective intellect, certain they have all the facts. They're quick to judge and even quicker to punish. They have no empathy (though they rush to claim they live by the laws of empathy's hobbled cousins "compassion" and "mercy"). They rely almost exclusively on the brain's System 2 thinking processes (linear thinking) and pour contempt on the brain's much older and more adaptive System 1 thinking processes (creative and intuitive thinking). They're slow to learn from their mistakes and even slower to admit they made any mistakes in the first place.

Here's something else I've noticed about militant atheists and other fundamentalist philosophers: they're really, really poor at constructing a whole and complete argument. In fact, most of them couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. But don't say this to their face, because they'll explode in vengeful anger -- maybe even treat you to a narcissistic rage reaction -- and they'll make you pay BIG for pointing out they're not really as smart as they think they are.

I take issue with militant atheist philosophies on the following fronts:

• They use restricted data sets and then claim they're using a complete data set. One example is an extreme reliance on Materialist cause-and-effect "Law" without regard or deference to the non-Materialist laws that govern most of the universe. Why is it "wrong" for religious leaders to ignore the actual laws of physics but "right" for atheists to do it when it suits them?
• Another example, taken from the field of religious studies, is a tendency for atheists to conflate many different topics into a single "bugaboo" called religion. Sure, religious fundamentalists conflate stuff all the time -- but why is it okay for atheists to fall back on conflation, over-simplification, literalism, and myth-making of their own?  
• Atheists, in my experience, rely heavily on "revelation" to an extent that rivals the worst abuses of "religious revelation" from major world religions. Under the category of "revelation" you find "proofs" such as "Because I said so," "Because I'm smarter than you," "Because I cherry-picked one small fact from an entire body of knowledge and used it out of context to show how smart I am," and "I just know it's true."
• Atheism has its own set of gods, though it likes to pretend otherwise. Top on the list of atheism's idols are "The Perfect Human Mind," followed closely by scientism; algorithmic solutions; and variations on the "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my genes made me do it" argument (which is really no different than the ancient religious argument that says "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my demons made me do it").
• Atheism is marked by a petulant, narcissistic refusal to examine the enormous and interconnected questions of scale, time, peripheral vision, alternating current, bonding, probability wave currents, and other non-linear, non-Materialist questions related to God and consciousness and Creation. They use their own personal human limits as proof that God can't actually exist! (as if God has ever understood questions of scale, time, etc. in the way a human brain does!) 

How are these philosophical approaches any different, characterologically speaking, from those used by religious fundamentalists?

How can you expect to become a happier, healthier person who understands patience and love and forgiveness and calmness and flexibility and healing and scale and time and bonding and breadth of knowledge and self-directed morality when you've made the choice to turn yourself into an "iceberg thinker" who refuses to look at anything except the small percentage of data floating above the surface of your System 2 thinking?

And why do you think it's wrong for religious teachers to do this but okay for you to do exactly the same thing?

In my view, militant atheism is hypocrisy in as pure a form as one can get.

______________________________________


March 2, 2016 addendum: A recent piece by Brian Bethune in Macleans highlights some interesting research by social scientists Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog into the unusual percentage of Islamist terrorists who have engineering degrees: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-so-many-jihadis-have-engineering-degrees/. Bethune says: "That takes Hertog and Gambetta to the thorny question of “mindsets for extremists.” Different types of people are attracted to different kinds of extremism—engineers mostly on one side, social scientists and humanities grads on the other—and the authors went in search of traits found in both secular and jihadi extremists as well as among engineers. Three stand out among conservatives in general in recent psychological research: disgust (or the felt need to keep one’s environment pure, which can underpin everything from homophobia to xenophobia); the “need for cognitive closure” (a preference for order and certainty that can support authoritarianism); a very high in-group/out-group distinction."

LSP44: Forgiveness in the Parable of the Prodigal Son

The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is one of a series of parables Jesus wrote to teach others about forgiveness.

The main divergence between Jesus' theology and the theology of other religious groups in first century Palestine was Jesus' understanding of the mystical power of forgiveness. Jesus' understanding of forgiveness is the key that unlocks the meaning of the Kingdom teachings, including the parables.

The Prodigal Son (or . . . Redemption Doesn't Happen Overnight). Photo credit JAT 2015.

Jesus' teachings on matters other than forgiveness don't sound a whole lot different from the teachings of other groups. Jesus, like the Pharisees -- and, indeed, like most religious groups of the time -- believed in the importance of ethics, moral choices, and obedience to a code of moral conduct. No society works well if there aren't shared assumptions about "the right way to create Peace." So Jesus certainly didn't invent the idea of moral codes. What he did do was turn the pathways to Peace upside down.

During Jesus' lifetime, and for centuries before, a body of writing called Wisdom literature was used to gather together important maxims about living a moral life. Wisdom literature taught that obedience to divinely revealed laws and cultural norms would guarantee "happiness" and eventual acceptance into the heavens. A major characteristic of most Wisdom literature is the insistence that Materialist laws of cause-and-effect govern all Creation (including God's own choices). If you apply reason, justice, and piety to these laws, you can create stability, order, safety, and happiness in your society. But those who wilfully disobeyed God's laws will surely be punished -- and rightly so. In the Jewish Scriptures, the books known as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are considered examples of Jewish Wisdom texts.   

But another canonical Jewish book that's often labelled "Wisdom" takes a different tack. The Book of Job is so different from conventional Wisdom collections that biblical scholar Michael Coogan once described the Book of Job as "anti-Wisdom Wisdom." In Job, nothing goes right for the key character until he decides to listen not to wise religious scholars but to what God says about God. It turns out that what God tells Job is not what human leaders have been teaching their followers.

Jesus, like Job before him, is a teacher of anti-Wisdom Wisdom. His minority understanding of how to be in relationship with God is so radical that it's only recently we've begun to want this paradigm in our society.

Jesus and Job both present a pathway to Peace built on seven main spiritual attributes:

1. forgiveness -- NOT mercy, atonement, or contract law
2. agape/love -- NOT obedience, fear, or contract law 
3. a "thinking" faith -- NOT blind faith, prophecy, or revelation 
4. humbleness -- NOT religious humility, religious salvation, or status addiction
5. radical inclusiveness -- NOT clan chosenness, honour-shame cultural norms, or sectarian segregation
6. courage -- NOT fate, predestination, or abdication
7. trust in the One God Who Is Two -- a belief that God is not a lone male figure (YHWH) but two distinct and separate figures, one male and one female (YHWH and his Asherah?), who together are the One God and who make all decisions together based on mutual forgiveness, agape, thinking faith, humbleness, radical inclusiveness, and courage. As above, so below.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son reflects Jesus' theology, Jesus' understanding of how we can be in full relationship with God during our lives as human beings.

Then Jesus said, "There was a man who had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of the property that will belong to me.' So he divided his property between them. A few days later the younger son gathered all he had and travelled to a distant country, and there he squandered his property in dissolute living. When he had spent everything, a severe famine took place throughout that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed the pigs. He would gladly have filled himself with the pods that the pigs were eating; and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself he said, 'How many of my father's hired hands have bread enough and to spare, and here I am dying of hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands." So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, 'Father I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his slaves, 'Quickly, bring out a robe -- the best one -- and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!' And they began to celebrate.

"Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. He replied, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.' Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. But he answered his father, 'Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!' Then the father said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.'"

There's nothing in this Kingdom parable that resembles traditional Wisdom. Instead, what we see is forgiveness. Forgiveness defies accepted logic and contradicts the "eye for an eye" laws of justice that governed most first century societies. This, suggests Jesus, is what God is really saying to us about who God is -- a parent who allows human children to become "dead" to their own true selves and struggle to learn from their terrible mistakes before the lost ones can be reunited in love and courage with their divine family. It's the children who have lost themselves, yet find their way home through self-forgiveness and courage, who have entered Jesus' Kingdom of the Heavens.

Jesus' Kingdom parables are confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with anti-Wisdom Wisdom because life is confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with all sorts of irrational (but totally wonderful) emotions like love and gratitude and devotion and forgiveness and the courage to change.

The Apostle Paul didn't agree with any of this, but that's another story.

LSP42: Gordian Knots in the Faith/Science/Religion Debate

On March 1, 2015, Scientific American blogger John Horgan posted a written reply he'd received from John Lennox on the question of whether religion and science can coexist. John Horgan (whose views are agnostic) had debated the question with John Lennox (whose views are Christian) at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Horgan posted Lennox's follow-up letter, and readers of the blog were then free to comment.

Here is my response, posted in the comment section on April 27, 2015 (with typos now fixed):

___________________________________________________
 

Religion isn't just "one thing." Faith isn't just "one thing." The human brain (where both religion and faith are experienced) isn't just "one thing." Anyone who tries to reduce these incredibly complex questions to simple either-or explanations isn't paying attention to reality. Photo credit JAT 2026.

 

In my experience, the real question is not whether religion and science can coexist, but whether religion and faith can coexist.

@4 Paul Topping wrote, "In my mind, the main 'proof' that convinces me of the atheist point of view is that people have so many different religions with such different explanations. . . . The only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong and that belief in religion is just something that some people have like blue eyes."

When I read a comment such as this (and there are many these days) I know the individual hasn't taken the time and trouble to use objective research tools to examine key questions about religion -- questions examined with tools such as historicity, source criticism, socio-rhetorical criticism, and cost-benefit analyses from political, economic, social, military, and legal perspectives in the contexts in which the doctrines arose. Most importantly, when superficial assessments of religion are offered, it's quickly clear that all questions about neurophysiology have been shelved.

Shelving questions about neurophysiology isn't reserved for those who claim to espouse the methodology of science. Shelving questions about how and why the human mind works in relationship with the rest of the universe is one of theology's least helpful contributions to humankind, in my opinion. I've read theological arguments so convoluted in their efforts to avoid the question of how and why the human mind works that they make a Gordian knot look like a simple twist tie.

Theology is increasingly understood today as some sort of withering branch of philosophical thought, a deservedly marginalized branch of human thought that has now been proudly replaced by the randomized, double-blind study method, etc.

Those who've studied the history of theological evolution, however, know that all early schools of theological thought (no matter what "religion" they're linked with today) arose from careful study of scientific principles followed by the application of scientific observations to questions of human character, morality, Law (nomos in Greek), justice, disease, healing, mental health, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not possible from a scientific perspective to reasonably argue that human beings 5,000 years ago (when the roots of today's religions really took hold in the soil of technological advances) had DNA so vastly different from ours that they couldn't use their brains in ways virtually identical to the ways we do. It's not reasonable to argue that they couldn't see for themselves the destructive issues of psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and machiavellianism without the benefit of today's research and today's DSM-V (which hasn't the courage to include psychopathy in its lauded pages).

Just as we continue to struggle today with these issues, our ancestors took steps to limit the destructive power of certain human choices that spring from Axis II issues. One of the tools each major culture developed was religious doctrine. But religious doctrine wasn't set apart from questions of politics, economics, healing, justice, legal codes, and scientific inquiry. To attack religion as if it has ever been a separate and unnecessary "entity" -- like a dead tree branch that can be lopped off -- is just plain sloppy and lazy from a methodological viewpoint.

Religious doctrines reflect the times and the cultural necessities from which they were born. This is why names and places change from religion to religion, but underlying concerns about destructive human choices don't. Such concerns are universal to the human condition because a psychopath by any other name is still a psychopath. (Members of the Greek pantheon, for instance, certainly seem to be archetypes for the human behaviours we find least desirable: narcissism, fickleness, lust, power-mongering, status addiction, and lack of empathy. Sound like any world leaders you know?)

Religious doctrines, however useful they may have been over the centuries from a political point of view, typically reflect a Materialist cause-and-effect understanding of science, which is quite useful and practical on a day-to-day basis. (Can't argue with classical physics when it comes to everyday usefulness.) The one thing major world religions don't do well, however, is to reflect the needs of FAITH -- a highly influential current of human experience, mostly expressed through System 1 thinking patterns in the brain. System 1 patterns have always paralleled -- and continue to parallel -- the more rigid, linear, Materialist thinking patterns of the human brain's newer System 2 processes.

The experience of faith is the experience of the presence of God in our daily lives. It may or may not be linked to membership in a formal religion.

For me, faith is a relationship with God that endures in the absence of sacred texts. It's an experience that can't be placed within the restrictive boxes of religious doctrinal traditions or texts -- or, for that matter, the restrictive boxes of Materialist cause-and-effect scientific traditions or theories. (Same thing, really.) Faith, far from being just a fanciful belief, is rooted 100% in the most objective scientific realities of the biological brain.

I won't bore you with my own experiences, but if you're interested in opening your heart and mind to what this faith experience might be, I'd recommend the awe-inspiring book Man's Search by Meaning by Dr. Viktor Frankl. Any scientific questions we have about the experience of faith, love, forgiveness, and the human search for meaning must take into account the data collected by Dr. Frankl under some of the most searing and horrendous conditions humankind has ever known: the European Holocaust.

Dr. Frankl, as both participant and scientific observer of the "best" and "worst" in human behaviour, introduced data into the faith/science/religion debate that must, at the very least, be considered from a falsifiability perspective.

It's not enough for any sort of "ism" promoter (whether scientism or religious fundamentalism -- same thing, really) to make lofty claims about the origins of evil and suffering. (Did you know, for instance, that Tertullian's late 2nd century CE doctrine of original sin -- a theory now called Traducianism -- tried to account for human evil on biological grounds?) Ideologues must also account for the data of innate goodness collected by less lofty and less voluble speakers such as the late Dr. Frankl.

Therein lies the really juicy stuff.

LSP40: Atheism: Blindness to the Question of Scale

The National Post has been very brave in the past few days.

First, it ran a major story on the current religious beliefs of Canadians. The article, called "A God? That's complicated. Canadians hanging on to personal faith as organized religion declines: poll," was published on April 5, 2015 and was based on a new Angus Reid poll.

Second, the Post offered readers a chance to answer the question "Do You Believe in God?" Not only did the Post print a selection of the letters it received, it allowed 966 on-line comments before finally closing the debate.

It was great to see such an enormous spectrum of thought in one place. Comments ranged from extreme atheism to extreme fideism, with everything in between. It was refreshing and encouraging to see an actual debate with thoughtful and cogent offerings from regular Canadians on a topic that matters to many. The Post editors, bucking the current trend of sanitizing and pre-packaging controversial ideas so no one's feelings will be hurt, took the audacious approach of allowing breadth in the debate. I applaud the editors for their courage.*

Something that emerged for me as I reflected on the varied comments was a better understanding of the schism that exists between atheists and theists.

One comment, written by a prolific comment writer named Life's Traveller, really drew my attention and prompted me to reply. In part, this is what he (she?) said:

In terms of religions, I just can't accept anything that my equally (and in many cases, greatly over-achievingly) ignorant fellow humans have to say about this. When we all hear the same, clear and consistent, story, straight from god with no human mediation (prophets, etc.), with ample amounts of irrefutable direct evidence, and explanations, testable under the most rigorous conditions that the brightest among us can devise, then I'll conditionally accept it ... perhaps.

I challenged this line of reasoning a couple of times, then Life Traveller came back with this:

"The God I trust and the God who sustains me every day is the God I see everywhere around me in the world of science" [quoting my previous comment]
Please be specific, and include your reasoning as to why exactly the god that you speak of in personal terms (who you trust and who sustains you), is absolutely necessary for whatever example that you choose to produce as a valid demonstration of the presence/existence/influence of "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (according to Oxford).

It took me all night to figure out why this line of reasoning (a line of reasoning shared by many atheists) is so psychologically and spiritually abusive when aimed at those of us who believe in God.

It's abusive because of the implicit assumption it tries to force on me. (I'm using myself here as an example of a person of faith, but I think other people of faith feel this way, too, in the face of militant atheism). It tries at the very outset to force me to agree to take on the "burden of proof" for someone else who is either too lazy or too narcissistic to accept the responsibility for using his or her own brain in the most balanced, holistic way possible. It tries to force me to put on blinders (as if I can't see God in the world "out there"). It tries to force me to use only human laws and human reasoning (as if I can't see God uses universal laws, not human laws). It tries to force me to agree with the fairy tale imaginings of human minds that worship Materialism (and worship themselves). Then, when I balk at these unfair starting assumptions (because they're not based in scientific reality), I'll be blamed for bringing mouldy bread to the table instead of the pure goblet of "truth." It will all be my fault, according to the atheist. And because it's my fault, I'll deserve to be punished. This will make it okay for the atheist to deride me, deride God, and raise him/herself up on a pedestal of smug superiority.

All the while, he's assuming his interpretations of the laws of physics are "right." He's using his "right to be right" as a foundation, a starting place, and he intends to sit in his comfortable place of "rightness" and feast on the imperfections and inadequacies of humans who believe in God. Sure, it's schadenfreude disguised as the pure goblet of truth, but if the atheist can keep me from noticing that -- if he can keep me thinking it's all my fault that he's so miserable -- then can he enjoy a lasting banquet of guilt, shame, inadequacy, and unworthiness from those of us who buy into his Materialist fairy tale.

But, you know, it's not my fault.

It's not my fault that the atheist has consciously and willingly chosen to believe that the Materialist laws of cause and effect govern everything in the universe. It's not my fault that the atheist has chosen to deny that the laws of physics governing baryonic matter represent only a small fraction of the total number of laws of physics in the universe. (Baryonic matter, which makes up the atoms and molecules we think of as "real" while we're on Planet Earth, represents only about 4 to 5% of the total energy of the known universe.) It's not my fault that the atheist can't -- or won't -- see the complexity and weirdness and relationships that govern quantum interactions.

It's not my responsibility to bring to the atheist's table a "proof" based solely on Materialist laws of cause and effect.

It's especially not my responsibility that the atheist simply can't cope with the questions and complexities that arise from scale.

It isn't possible to talk about God without always bearing in mind the question of scale. God the Mother and God the Father are very, very big. They're also very, very smart. To ask anyone to describe God using only their own personal experiences and their own personal scientific knowledge is not fair, not justifiable, and not even a tiny bit humble. Each one of us can provide only a small piece of the overall portrait of God. Each small piece is important and valid, but no one piece (and no one person) can provide everything we hope to know. 

For those of us living as human beings on Planet Earth, we can't begin to get a sense of who God is unless we're willing to approach the question of God with scale in mind.

 

In April 2024, a total solar eclipse was visible from Nova Scotia, Canada. Although I safely watched the eclipse through my approved glasses, I used the camera on my phone to photograph some of the interesting light effects. If you look closely, you'll see the camera captured a large, bubble-shaped reflection (superimposed over the trees) with a tiny "moon-bitten crescent sun" hovering in the middle of the bubble. That's a reflection of what the eclipse looked like at the time I snapped the photo. Photo credit JAT 2024.

To get a true snapshot of who God really is, we'd have to take a poll of all living creatures -- both past and present -- on Planet Earth and then collate all our individual experiences and insights into a vast meta-study. It wouldn't be sufficient to poll only human beings. Human beings represent a small portion of God's children on Planet Earth, and human experiences are necessarily narrow in scope compared to the whole picture of God's relationship with Creation. Humans don't have all the answers.

Humans who want to know God and be in relationship with God have to get over their own human self-importance. They have to accept with humbleness and courage that about 95% of the laws of physics governing their lives are not straightforward and not predictable and not within their complete and utter control. (Have you met any atheists who aren't controlling Type A perfectionists? I haven't.)

You're only human, and the fact that you get to play with even 4–5% of the laws of physics while you're here is really quite something (when you think of the whole scale of Creation, that is).

But don't be thinkin' God is required to squeeze into that small little packet of baryonic reality (like the Genie in Aladdin's Lamp) so you can be spared the challenge of "thinking bigger." If you want to know God, you're going to have to get outside your comfort zone and you're going to have to accept that what you find out there won't be designed from a neat and tidy human point of view. 

As the X-files used to say, "The proof is out there."

Or maybe, more properly, in there -- where quantum reality lies.

God bless.

 

 

* Addendum September 11, 2026: Sadly, I fear this kind of courage would be lacking in today's polarized political climate. Along these lines, the current editorial trends of the National Post no longer align with my own centrist beliefs.

LSP37: The Coat of Many Colours: What Scientology Teaches Us About Gnosticism

There's only thing I like about L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology, and that's the way it serves as a teaching tool about the brutal efficiency of prophetic "revelation."

This morning, on the BBC site, I found a wonderful article by Owen Gleiberman about the new Alex Gibney documentary on Scientology. The documentary, called "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" has been attracting a lot of attention since its release earlier this year. The film is in turned based on the 2013 book by Lawrence Wright called "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief."

Gleiberman ends his article by saying this:

The twisted genius of L Ron Hubbard is that he figured out a way to define and exploit contemporary soul sickness. He was right about the disease. But Going Clear makes a powerful case that he came up with a cure that only made it worse.

Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was a twisted genius. As Gleiberman notes, the film "captures how Hubbard fused reality, fantasy and the pursuit of enlightenment in a way that, according to the film's witnesses, expressed his own highly unstable and even violent nature."

This is what prophets do.

(Please note that I draw clear distinctions between the terms "prophet" and "mystic." For me, the term "prophet" is reserved for an individual of dubious mental health who uses claims of "divine revelation" to establish his or her primacy of authority over others. By contrast, I use the term "mystic" to refer to individuals who are on the extreme end of the "intuition" spectrum, most of whom go through life as writers and philosophers without becoming consciously aware of their vocation as "mystics.")

Prophets who claim divine religious authority for themselves aren't new. Shown here is a red granite statue from Egypt's 18th Dynasty (Temple of Khonspakhered) on display at the British Museum, London UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

A prophet isn't interested in teaching people how to heal their relationship with God. A prophet is instead interested in crafting an entire "philosophy of science" (a cosmogony, if you will) for the purpose of explaining to you in ruthlessly logical ways why you should hand over to the prophet your integrity; your money; your free will; your core self of worthiness and wisdom; and your relationship with God.

The coat of many colours you were born with is stripped away from you, and in its place you're given a "new and improved" garment of ash.

You're told when you put it on that you're donning the pure white garb of enlightenment. You're told that you're abandoning the burden of emotion, replacing the heaviness of emotion with the weightlessness of pure reason. You're told that all the proof you need lies around you in the Materialist laws of Cause and Effect. You're told that when you see past of the illusions you've created for yourself, you'll suddenly recognize that you can transcend your lowly humanness and reclaim your rightful place in the universe as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan (as Scientologists describe it).

The garment you've been given reeks of pure narcissism. It reeks of the prophet's absolute refusal to accept that he's a mere child of God. It reeks of his conviction that he himself is so omniscient and so omnipotent that he surely MUST be a god who has lost his memory of his own godhood and fallen to Earth, where he's obliged to dig his way out of Earth's heavy muck so he can stop being reincarnated here.

So have I conflated several different religious beliefs here? On the surface, it would seem so. But no.  What I've done here is describe a single religious paradigm that manifests again and again in humanity's many diverse cultures, not because it's right but because it so beautifully suits the psychological needs of bullies, tyrants, narcissists, and psychopaths.

What I've described here is Gnosticism.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Scientology's underlying cosmogony:

Scientology beliefs revolve around the thetan, the individualized expression of the cosmic source, or life force, named after the Greek letter theta (θ). The thetan is the true identity of a person – an intrinsically good, omniscient, non-material core capable of unlimited creativity. 

In the primordial past, thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe has no independent reality, but derives its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity.  Eventually they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.

Thetans are reborn time and time again in new bodies through a process called "assumption" which is analogous to reincarnation. Like Hinduism, Scientology posits a causal relationship between the experiences of earlier incarnations and one's present life, and with each rebirth, the effects of the MEST universe (MEST here stands for matter, energy, space, and time) on the thetan become stronger.

It's easy to see the narcissism that underlies the teachings of Scientology. This particular body of teachings is so new that most of us haven't yet overlaid the raw narcissism of it with layers and layers of "divine authority" derived from "ancient tradition." Scientology would like you to pretend that L. Ron Hubbard successfully transcended his own flawed humanity, but, as Going Clear shows, this isn't true. The legacy of a revelatory prophet is most vulnerable in the decades soon after his life, when there are still witnesses with long memories and solid documentation who can attest to the true character of the prophet.

Scientology, like other forms of Gnosticism, is really an attempt to rupture the relationship between individuals and God.

It's just so damned inconvenient, from the narcissist's point of view, to have a God who's already here and already acting for our benefit. The narcissist can't tolerate the idea that he -- a human being -- isn't the smartest, fastest, strongest being in Creation. So, to assuage his intolerably monstrous ego, he invents an entire cosmogony where he is God and he is on a brave and bold quest to reclaim his rightful power as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan.

By looking at the origins of Scientology -- and specifically at the psychological issues that have driven the founders and chief promoters of this new cult -- we can see the pattern of narcissistic behaviours for ourselves. We can then use our observations to help us decide which aspects of our own spiritual journeys are holding us back as we try to heal our relationship with God.

In order to progress on the Spiral Path of faith, science, wonder, and relationship with God, you must start with the assumption that it's good enough for you to be a child of God instead of trying to become Mother Father God themselves.

Being a child of God entitles you to all the benefits of wearing the coat of many colours God gives to all God's children. It entitles you to be fully yourself, without judgment, abuse, or psychological violence. It entitles you to live passionately according to the needs of both the Heart and the Mind. It entitles you to view your human lifetime as a richly rewarding, positive experience instead of a punitive, degrading, sin-filled, mud-wrestling match. It entitles you to blend both Materialist laws and non-Materialist laws in your daily life. It entitles you to be honest with yourself about how much you really want and need to be in relationship with God.

Gardens are one way to experience the coat of many colours while you're here on Planet Earth. God invites you to help with planting and watering and weeding a garden to create a place of peace, beauty, and healing for others to enjoy (including creatures great and small). But God doesn't expect you to be in charge of the design of every living organism in the vast universe we live in. That's God's job!  Enjoy the gardens of Earth while you're here and rejoice in the ways you can help create and sustain such beauty. It may not be a much of a contribution as far as a spiritual narcissist is concerned, but it's important as far as God and your angels and your own soul are concerned.  Great blessings come in small packages!

It's no fun at all believing you're required to be responsible for everything in Creation. Fortunately, God doesn't expect you to be God.

If you can manage to embrace the first stanza of the Serenity Prayer and live in basic accordance with the tenets of the Twelve Step Program, you'll be doing very well as far as your angels -- and your God -- are concerned.

Best of luck to you!

LSP29: The Presence of God

This morning, I read an online interview with author Gregg Braden in a New Age magazine called OMTimes. The magazine says Gregg Braden is "internationally known as a pioneer in bridging science, ancient wisdom and the real world!" If you go to Wikipedia to learn more about Gregg Braden, you'll find only a brief entry with a very short introductory paragraph followed by a list of his publications. I find it interesting that Braden's Wikipedia entry has been so heavily redacted.

The interview in OMTimes can't be downloaded, so I spent some time copying quotes from the article (including all the punctuation and capitalization):

"Since 1986 Gregg has explored high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts to merge their timeless secrets with the best science of today. His discoveries are now shared in 34 languages through such paradigm-inspiring books as: The God Code, Deep Truth, and his newest, The Turning Point: Creating Resilience in a Time of Extremes."

Braden believes the world is at a turning point with human beings facing extremes of climate change, economic change, and health change that no human beings have ever dealt with before. He defines "community" as "our answer to our time of extremes," and he defines "resilience" as "our personal ability to thrive in our time of extremes." (This sounds eerily like the apostle Paul's koinonia and hagiasmos: fellowship and holiness.)

He has this to say about the merging of science, ancient wisdom and the real world:

"The wisdom comes from 5,000 years of the spiritual traditions where we apply what we know about the world and about our lives. It's about making life work for us. As a scientist, I was trained and taught that I must follow either one path or the other -- the path of science or the path of spirituality.

In this generation, we have an opportunity, rather than to choose between science and spirituality, to marry the best science of the 21st century with 5,000 years of spiritual wisdom and weave them into a way of knowing that is greater than the science can be all by itself. It's greater than spiritual can be all by itself. And when we do that, we give ourselves the evolutionary edge that our ancestors did not have [emphasis added]. I believe that with this edge we can not only survive but that we will thrive in the new normal that is emerging based upon the extremes that we see in the world right now. The extremes are with us. For our lifetime, probably for our children's lifetime. We have to be honest with ourselves about that."

He goes on to talk about his so-called "new discoveries": "cooperation, mutual aid and connectivity." (Really? These are new?  Has he read the Bible lately?) And he tries to weave everything together by talking about magnetic fields, saying "science is showing us that the magnetic fields, regulated through the human heart, connect all of us":

"Strong magnetic fields are conducive to cooperation and the strongest magnetic field of the human body is the field created by the human heart. The heart based emotions of cooperation, of compassion, appreciation, care, gratitude, are scientifically proven to strengthen the magnetic field of the human heart. These fields embrace a group and even our planet [emphasis added]. This has also been shown through research through Princeton University and The Institute of HeartMath and so it brings us full circle back to our most ancient and cherished traditions when we find a way to communicate through our hearts."

At the conclusion of the article, Braden pays lip service to Love by defining Love as an energy that permeates the entire universe.

Not once, however, does he mention God or the soul.

He talks about 5,000 years of ancient wisdom (without ever describing how damaging some of it can be to the health of the human brain and body). He talks about "the turning point" (which is qualitatively no different than "the End Times" preached by apocalyptic prophets such as the apostle Paul). He talks about the unique and pivotal role of human beings in holding the planet together during a unique and pivotal time. He talks about the monistic Oneness ("connectivity") of all human beings. He talks about how clever we are. He uses Materialist cause & effect science to support his spiritual claims.

But he never talks about God.

5,000 years of ancient wisdom, huh? Well, hmm, I'm kind of wondering why we have to restrict ourselves to a mere 5,000 years of human wisdom when our planet is brimming with the history, stories, science, creativity, exploration, and wisdom of God's wondrous and infinitely present love. This fossil of an ancient turtle is on display at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Reflecting on the incredible history of our planet is a good way to keep ourselves humble and not give our mind-based religious texts more credit than they deserve. Photo credit JAT 2015.

Gregg Braden doesn't need to talk about God because Braden is a dyed-in-the-wool apophatic prophet.* Apophatics find the idea of a personal, theistic God highly inconvenient. For apophatics, field theory -- especially the Grand Unified Theory -- is all that's needed to explain who we are and why we're here. If Love can be presented as an energy field that unites us -- or, even better, as a single cosmic field from which all of us originate -- then so much the better. That way no one has to deal with the messy implications of a Divine Love that's based on choice, free will, courage, trust, gratitude, devotion, forgiveness, and NOT Oneness.

My mystical radar always go off when I read that a spiritual teacher has spent 28 years exploring high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts. I always want to know what such a teacher thinks he'll find in an ancient monastery that he can't find by paying full attention to God's messages in his daily life in and around his home.

So let me reiterate: God's presence can be felt anywhere you go in Creation. Anywhere at all. While God's presence has no doubt been felt by a few people who've abandoned their lives for the sake of high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts, none of this ancient wisdom is necessary. God wouldn't do this to you. God wouldn't takes all the clues about how to feel God's presence and then hide them from you in a bunch of ancient texts known only to a few people on the planet. Real life isn't like an Indiana Jones movie. God puts everything out on the table for everybody to see. God hides nothing.

In order to feel God's presence, you don't need to pursue hidden codes or lost languages or ancient magical prayers or occult naming powers. You don't need any of that. You have everything you need right where you are -- in your own heart, mind, body, soul, and strength (the combination of these is what Jesus called "the Kingdom").

Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it's the only reality that's truly consistent with the idea of a loving and forgiving God.

It's great fun to put hidden codes and lost languages in adventure films and books. I myself love that kind of adventure story. But don't make the mistake of thinking God is hiding reality from you by tucking it inside reams of dried-out papyrus or mouldy parchment. 

God reads today's newspaper every morning, just like you.


* Please see the post of November 11, 2014 called "The Burden of Perfection"


For Further Reflection:

If you're sitting really close to your screen, you may want to step back a bit (metaphorically speaking), because I'm about to vent. Loudly.

What is the one thing a narcissist fears?

This isn't a tangential comment. It's central to all the big questions we have as human beings about God and Creation and the soul. It's also central to all the big answers we've been given over the centuries by our religious leaders and spiritual gurus.

A narcissist is someone who cannot control his or her inner impulse to seize the high ground in the battle for "the Right to be Right."

Most people these days are aware that narcissism is a behaviour involving the need to be "special." Very briefly, this specialness manifests in constant attempts to prove that one is better than other people, more deserving of attention and rewards than other people, more worthy of worship than other people. They believe there's one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for regular people. They have particular difficulty understanding a morality of boundaries. This is because, from their viewpoint, any kind of interpersonal boundary is an obstacle to the ultimate goal of establishing their own personal purity, piety, and perfection.

While it's become popular to say that behind every narcissist is a person who lacks self-esteem -- and who therefore needs our unconditional love -- this is simply not true. A narcissist is someone who has stopped seeing Creation as a tapestry filled with nuanced colours, and has instead chosen to see Creation as a black-and-white tug of war between Chaos and Order -- not necessarily Evil versus Good (though it usually plays out this way in the end) but equality-of-relationships ("Chaos") versus equality of outcomes ("Order").

The narcissist then uses this dualistic thesis as an excuse to see him/herself as a righteous warrior on the side of Order. No method, no tool, no short-term form of violence is too unethical or unjust to be used for the greater good of restoring Order to society and hence to all Creation. A quick review of dystopian science fiction novels and films (e.g. "The Giver," "Blade Runner 2049") reveals that many careful thinkers have observed this ancient Chaos-versus-Order pattern: in their stories, the bad guys are never the ones who want to preserve or revive humanity's unpredictable, passionate, creative nature; the bad guys are always the ones who are trying to impose a crushing, soul-destroying perfection on everyone else.

For a narcissist, there's no more worthy goal than forcing the world around you to be a perfect mirror-image of your own purity, piety, and perfection. But to pull this one off -- to convince yourself and others that you yourself are the ideal model of humanity to which all others should aspire -- you need one hell of an algorithm to convince your biological brain to ignore all its System 1 input and focus solely on its System 2 input.

This algorithm is a line of reasoning I call "the Right to be Right."

To break this down a bit, "the Right to be Right" is a sequence of either-or statements (as all algorithms are) that are designed to get you to a specific endpoint or goal (in this case, the goal of proving your true worthiness to be admired and worshipped). You start with the intended goal, then you use logic to work out all the different pathways that could lead you to your goal, and, in addition, all the pathways that could block you from reaching your goal. You break down all these pathways into the smallest segments you can (this becomes your strings of either-or statements). Then you do everything in your power to optimize the pathway that gets you to your goal. You look for efficiencies. You root out redundancies. You banish ambiguities. You do it consciously and with a great sense of purpose, and, what's more, you regularly congratulate yourself on your ingenuity and persistence, which only serve to prove your point. Getting to your goal is no accident.

Here's how the script for "the Right to be Right" looks when drafted by the brain's System 2 networks: "I believe that I am a very special person who has been chosen by God* to save the world. I have very special gifts and a very special intelligence that will enable me to do what no one else before me has ever done. I am certain that I am right. Moreover, natural law dictates that I have the right to claim my superiority over others. Natural law wouldn't have made me so special unless I were, indeed, as special as I know myself to be, so natural law gives me the justification and authority I need to proclaim that I am right and must not be questioned by those of inferior ability. (I wouldn't be respecting the preeminence of natural law if I did anything less.) But I suspect some people may not believe I'm right, so I must do everything in my power to prove I'm right. Those of lesser ability will thank me for taking the steps I need to take in order to restore Order to our family/community/nation. God will thank me. I will be remembered in the annals of history as a great peacemaker. In the meantime, though, I must use every method at my disposal to prove to people that I am right. I am authorized (by natural law and by God) to hide, discard, or dispose of any facts or books or other sources of information that might create confusion about who is right and who is wrong. I am not obligated to consider any facts or books or other sources of information that might conflict with or undermine my "Right to be Right" (because, logically speaking, I do not and cannot make mistakes). If opposition to my goal of perfect Order becomes too vocal, too physical, or too heart-based, I have the authority to suppress dissent in order to preserve the pathways to ultimate perfection. Traits such as love, forgiveness, compromise, egalitarianism, and self-honesty must be considered enemies of Order, and must therefore be constantly opposed through just wars. I am confident that events will demonstrate conclusively that God has been on my side throughout the long and difficult path to salvation. (*Note: wherever you see the word "God" underlined, you can substitute the word "science" and get the same result.)

There are no limits to what a narcissist will do to ensure that his or her "Right to be Right" is protected. No cost is too great from the narcissist's perspective, even when the cost is everybody else's potential to have a loving relationship with God.

Keep this in mind as you read what religious and spiritual leaders, both past and present, have said about the presence of God.

Are they really trying to help you? Or are they hoarding the authority for themselves as all narcissists do?

God doesn't hoard love, and neither should God's human teachers and healers. So keep an eye out for the footprints of "the Right to be Right" in the books and lectures and workshops you choose. And watch for it in your own life choices, too. Most people these days are struggling with "the Right to be Right," so you have lots of company to help you work it out.

Meanwhile, in answer to the question above . . . what a narcissist fears most is that you'll see through the "Right to be Right" algorithm and realize the whole thing is a fraud from start to finish.

We all have days when we're right and we all have days when we're wrong. But no one except for God the Mother and God the Father have the right to be right.

The rest of us are just doing the best we can.

LSP26: Materialism, Buddhism, and Karma

Sometime in the 6th century BCE, in a region now known as Nepal, a man was born who is credited as being the Awakened One. Siddhartha Gautama -- known to us as the Buddha -- crafted an entirely new philosophical system in response to the problems he saw in Hinduism (as it existed then). His teachings are currently of great interest to spiritual seekers in the West who are tired of the turmoil created by our cultural norms.

From the earliest years of the movement, the Buddha's core teachings looked very different on the surface compared to Hinduism's ritual-bound, authoritarian teachings. Therein lay Buddhism's appeal. Unlike the highly supernatural Hindu teachings, the earliest Buddhist teachings were empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and directed to individuals.* The Buddha's original religion (or way of life) was therefore long on intense self-effort, short on metaphysical speculation, devoid of authority, devoid of ritual, devoid of tradition, and devoid of the supernatural.**

Unfortunately, because the Buddha continued to uphold the laws of Karma -- not only using Karma as the main root system for his philosophy but pushing the logical implications of Karma to their ultimate purified form -- the religion he founded is also devoid of relationship with God.

Technically, Buddhism is referred to as a non-theistic religion or philosophy because there's no room in it for a personal God. This isn't to say that God doesn't exist -- just that a personal God isn't needed. Or wanted.

This is a strong statement, so before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that my comments in this post refer only of those narcissistic individuals (some of whom I've had heartbreaking dealings with) who use the core teachings of Buddhism for their own selfish purposes and gain. Most Buddhists, I'm sure, try not to misuse the teachings -- just as most Pauline Christians try to rise above the low bar set by the Church for their personal conduct.

The Buddha's earliest teachings are intensely transpersonal -- trancending the self -- in the way that all apophatic teachings strive for. A personal God is discarded and replaced with the numinous cloud of Knowing/Unknowing that many people now call Source or Godhead. It's this unknowable cloud of universal law that lies behind the theories of Karma in the East and Gnosis in the West.

As with all major world religions, Buddhism isn't a single religious entity, but is instead an umbrella term for various schools and branches that have diverged from the earliest teachings. A common belief in the doctrine of Karma is one of the uniting threads among diverse forms of Buddhism. This statue fragment of the Buddha is from the Gandharan art collection of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2017.

According to Karma's teachers, the cloud's Materialist laws of cause and effect (i.e. Karma) are THE laws you must obey. There's no way around the absolutism of the consequences you bear for your choices. Although it's daunting to be stuck with these laws, the good news is this: whoever who can read the cosmic laws encoded in the cloud acquires great power -- infinite power, actually. Whoever who reads the cosmic laws and controls them no longer needs a relationship with God because he or she has, in a sense, become God.

In other words, once you have law, who needs love?

And who needs forgiveness and humbleness? The laws of Karma, which purport to originate in a universe of pure morality, haven't the teeniest tiniest crack within them for the seeds of Divine Forgiveness. This point alone demonstrates the stark contrast between the Buddha's teachings and Jesus' teachings.

Bear in mind an important point here, a point which is often overlooked: it's the people who claim to have achieved nirvana who get to tell the rest of us what the Karmic laws are. It's the normal, regular, everyday people -- not the universe or the planet or the laws of non-Materialist science or the laws of neuroscience -- who are dictating the meaning of universal justice. It's the ones who obey the traditions of their lineage who don't have to explain themselves. We're simply expected to trust that anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (absence of a permanent personality or soul) tell us everything we need to know about life on Planet Earth -- because the Buddhist philosophers have told us so. (When they see this pattern of top-down authority in Christianity, we call it revelation.)

In its purest, earliest form, the teachings of Buddhism are no different than the teachings of other apophatic mystical traditions that seek to depose God as a person (actually, two people) and elevate the human mind to a position of authority it doesn't deserve.

Ironic, yes?


* Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1958 and 1991), page 98.
** Huston Smith, The World's Religions, pages 94-97.


For Further Reflection:

Sometimes, when we've been born and raised with certain beliefs about how the Universe works, we discover it's no easy thing to set aside those beliefs even when we're sure they're wrong.

A few researchers in recent years have been looking for evidence in the human brain for "the God Spot" or "the God Code" to explain why most people seem to want and need religion in their lives. Some researchers have noticed there's a sort of "God-shaped conceptual space" in the brain that tends to fill up with non-Materialist beliefs. But it's really more complicated than this. From the moment of birth, the biological brain starts looking for evidence of two things: (1) how the 3D Universe works and (2) how the self fits into this strange new 3D Universe.

Bear in mind that, for the soul, the 3D Universe of baryonic matter (i.e. atoms and molecules that respond to the laws of classical physics) are not the norm. Souls (angelic consciousnesses) are born into the non-baryonic quantum world that governs 95% of all energy in Creation, a world where Divine Love and Divine Forgiveness and non-locality and quantum weirdness are normal parts of everyday life. Souls are used to weirdness. So when we choose to incarnate, we hit the ground running (so to speak) as we try to take in all the sights and sounds and gravitational laws that apply to 3D life on Planet Earth.

In our early years, we rely heavily on our own built-in observational skills as little scientists-in-human-form. We're constantly exploring the laws of classical physics, testing and retesting (yes, the peas still fall when I threw them!), and filling up our brains with all sorts of important data sets. Soon we start to ask more advanced questions about the laws of classical physics, and at this point we turn to the wisdom of the adults around us. We absorb what they tell us about how the Universe works. We also absorb what they indirectly imply through their own choices and their own responses to the world around them. We use the wisdom of adults as a sort of macro to filter and sort our understanding about the laws of the Universe. And this is a sensible thing for us to do because there's so much to learn and process.

When the adults around us live and breathe a highly specific cosmogony -- for example, Young Earth Creationism in Christianity, or Karma in Buddhism -- our growing brains start to accept this cosmogony not as a working theory but as an actual scientific truth. Based on our acceptance of cosmogony as truth, we then build an internal moral code that's consistent with our cosmogony. We do this because we want our inner selves -- our inner laws and choices -- to be in harmony with the laws we believe govern all Creation. This is the only approach to life that makes sense, because even when we're very young, we sense that we're not alone in Creation, that our lives are fully interdependent with the forces that govern all Creation. So we want to flow with the forces as we understand them, not against them.

You can imagine, therefore, how the biological brain will shape itself in childhood and early adulthood if the laws of Karma are upheld as scientific truth (even though in actuality the laws of Karma are pure conjecture). Planet Earth will, of necessity, look like a very grim place to you, and your lot in life will seem like a scientific reality that you must deserve and can't do anything about unless you commit to the path of letting go of the one thing that's truly yours: yourself.

The System 2 networks of the brain, scarily enough, see the logic in this path. But the System 1 networks, which hold within them the seeds for the path of love and forgiveness and meaning and empathy and relationship with God, will fight and fight against this ghastly "truth" until their biological networks are finally broken apart through constant suppression and denial.

Eventually, the brain's networks, so overgrown with the tenacious kudzu-like roots of Karma, can only see the world as proof of the theory itself. It's a vicious cycle, one that reinforces the theory of cyclical time and further damages the brain's ability to objectively assess religious doctrines.

One final note: You might think that a theory that's been around for a long time is surely correct simply because of its longevity. But many spiritual and religious theories have existed for centuries, even millennia, before being discarded. So longevity is in itself no proof of anything. In the past few centuries, Christianity has been undergoing a process of sorting and winnowing, and now many Christians are proud to say they don't accept ancient doctrines such as patriarchy and infallibility. We're constantly being called upon as children of God to be honest with ourselves about doctrines that create and sustain harm.

I personally believe that no religion anywhere on Planet Earth is -- or should be -- exempt from this constant process of reexamination, healing, and redemption. This is how we make the world a better place, one choice at a time. But we can't do it without Humbleness.

LSP25: What About Karma? Does It Fit With Divine Love?

Is it okay for a person on the Spiral Path of wonder, science, and faith to believe in Karma? Is it okay for a person who believes in Divine Love to also believe in Karma?

Unfortunately, it's not okay. It's not okay because Divine Love and Karma are mutually exclusive theories about Creation. If you believe in Divine Love, there's no room for Karma. Meanwhile, if you believe in Karma, there's no room for Divine Love. This may sound a bit harsh -- maybe even a bit extreme -- but if you want to let go of the crippling fear that your soul is somehow defective or unworthy of hope and healing, then only one of these two theories has the power to free you from the fear.

October maples. Photo credit JAT 2014.

Simply put, you have to choose. You have to choose what kind of spiritual tree you want to grow in your garden of life.* You can start with roots founded in Divine Love, or you can start with roots founded in Karma. The choice is yours, because you have free will. But you need to know that the tree you grow from Divine Love will look very different in 20 years from the tree grown from Karma. Both start from small, vulnerable seeds, which don't look much different from each other in the beginning (as both uphold the importance of moral precepts). But tend them and feed them year after year and you'll eventually see the differences. 

Where will you see the differences? You'll see them in the thoughts, feelings, actions, and health issues of your very own brain. This is because the biological brain is designed to alter its wiring based on the major filters you place on your decisions. If you make a decision to grow the Karma tree in your life, your brain will gradually rewire itself to reflect your belief that cause and effect are always predictable, that human rewards and punishments should always be immediate, obvious, and logical to the human mind. Such beliefs inevitably result in justifications for revenge; social hierarchies; resistance to healing and change; and rejection of the human need for forgiveness and redemption.

There are several factors that make the Karma tree seem very appealing, especially in the early stages of a spiritual journey:

1.  The Karma tree is based on the theory that the entire universe is moral, and that moral choices can't be separated from other kinds of choices.

2.  The moral laws of Karma are believed to be absolute. These laws state that absolute rights and absolute wrongs exist, both of which have logical, predictable consequences for each soul. Therefore, although human beings always have free will, there's really no chance or accident in the world because universal laws of cause and effect will eventually catch up with you (if not now, then in your next life).

3.  Karma is a highly logical, law-based philosophical system that makes perfect sense to logical, law-based human minds. It demands that each person be 100% responsible for all his or her choices. 

4.  Karma teaches that Justice is absolute, totally fair, and inevitable.

5.  Karma places great power in the hands of human beings. It's the power to fully comprehend cosmic laws and use those laws to create one's own future. The universe must bend to human will power once we humans grasp its laws.

6.  Karma teaches that the world we live in here (i.e. 3D Planet Earth) can't ever be perfected because its mix of good and evil is an intentional "training ground" for souls. This can never change because the planet's purpose is to be a "middle world" between the heavens above and the hells below. Social progress is therefore a delusion.

7.  Karma starts with a cyclical understanding of Time.

These seven factors are the key philosophical roots that together create the theory of Karma. Although these roots sound very logical and fair to most human minds, the big problem is this: these factors, when blended together, create the perfect excuse to avoid the hard work of opening your heart to Divine Love.

Opening your heart to Divine Love takes courage, humbleness, and forgiveness. This is what Jesus' Kingdom teachings were all about -- opening your heart to Divine Love by finding and using your own courage, humbleness, and ability to forgive. Courage, humbleness, and forgiveness aren't based in the logical, 3D mind; they're based in the emotional centres of the brain and soul -- the inner place we call the Heart.

The Heart has its own set of rules, but it's not the same set of rules the Mind uses (nor even, for that matter, the same set of rules the body uses). The Heart sees many colours, tints, and tones where the Mind sees only black and white.

There's nothing in Jesus' understanding of God, Divine Love, or the soul that resembles the roots of the Karma tree. Jesus was trying to show people how to grow something very different from the Karma tree, something that's built on the needs of the heart AND the mind AND the body AND the soul -- not just the needs of the mind. (Not that you'd know it after 2,000 years of Church teachings based on Paul's thorny, ugly, spiky version of the spiritual tree . . .)

Divine Love isn't a set of transpersonal laws based on pure Mind. Divine Love is an emotional choice. It's a choice made by God the Mother and God the Father together. Because it's a choice -- because it's their choice -- you have absolutely no control over it. You can't force God to mete out justice the way you see fit. You can't force God to agree that your neighbour got what he deserved. You can't force God to say it's okay for you to stop working toward social progress. You can't force God to agree with the religious choices you make in your life. You can't force God to agree with your personal assessment of your own cleverness.

You're not nearly as smart as the theory of Karma tells you. And God isn't nearly as stupid.


* Please see "It's the Roots, Not the Fruits, That Matter" from January 29, 2014.


For Further Reflection: 

There's no point planting seeds for the Tree of Life if you're going to salt the ground around it with toxic beliefs that constantly kill off the tender shoots of new relationship. So if you want to build a strong, healthy, mature relationship with God, you need to sift and sort through the doctrines you hold, then set aside the beliefs that are blocking your relationship skills.  A small number of religious and philosophical doctrines are so poisonous to your relationship with God that if you insist on hanging onto them, you'll find yourself struck, frustrated, never making progress. One of the most pernicious of these anti-relationship doctrines is the theory of Karma.

Since the late 1800's, Christianity has gradually been exposed to, and influenced by, various Eastern teachings that view Karma as the quintessential philosophical underpinning for morality, justice, personal enlightenment, and piety. Many Christians have been understandably eager to explore the goals and practices of these Eastern traditions in the hope of enriching their own experience of God's presence. It's somewhat difficult, however, to achieve this enrichment if you naively embrace the Materialist cause-and-effect laws of Karma. Karma is, after all, a set of doctrines which, at its very core, shows nothing but contempt for God.

It's no accident that Buddhism is technically a non-theistic religion. The whole point of the Buddha's original teachings was to demonstrate that an efficient system of algorithms could take human beings steadily closer to the Laws of Creation without any need whatsoever for a personal God. It's a brilliant system of logic, to be sure. But, as with any system that relies completely on algorithms, there's no room for the mystery of the Tree of Life. This may explain why many forms of Buddhism have evolved over the centuries to reintroduce the creativity, stories, family traditions, and art that were of necessity snuffed out by the Four Noble Truths.

In the core teachings of Buddhism, algorithms rule. In the teachings of Jesus, differential calculus is the key.

Algorithms have an unfortunate tendency to spawn cultural norms that are rigid, hierarchical, patriarchal, and dependent on Materialist cause-and-effect to explain why some people should be considered superior to others. Christianity, while demonstrating these same harsh aspects many times during its history (not to its credit), has repeatedly been subject to countervailing "eruptions" of horizontal inclusiveness and respect for women and children. These periodic "eruptions" of Divine Love have been made possible because Christianity has built-in doctrines that deal with flow rates; that is, doctrines that encourage change and learning and healing and experiences of redemption over time -- time that's understood as linear, not cyclical (which makes a huge difference as far as the biological brain is concerned).

Not every Christian has accepted that humbleness is a necessary aspect of relationship with God, but some have. Many Jews have seen the calculus of faith, as well. It's the willingness to be flexible in all our relationships (including our relationship with God) that lets us bend and grow with the wonders of the Tree of Life.

As I said above, if you're sure the Tree of Karma is right for you, than by all means stick with it. But don't expect it to bear the same fruit as the Tree of Life. And don't pretend the Tree of Karma is a viable path to feeling God's presence in your life when Karma's very purpose is to justify your personal quest to become a self-contained god yourself.

You can either have a path that leads you to Mother Father God or a path that leads you to self-sanctification/self-divination. But you can't have both.

Full disclosure: you have the right to choose whatever you like; but your angels have the right to have an opinion on your choices. So if you keep insisting you're a long lost spark of the Divine who's desperately trying to reclaim your rightful godhood (Gnosticism), or you keep proclaiming you're trying to escape from suffering through self-transcendence/no-self (Buddhism), you can expect to get some feedback from your guardian angels about your arrogance and narcissism and lack of respect for God's wisdom. Sometimes this feedback feels a lot like Karma, but an angel is always looking for ways to help you expand your emotional choices, not shut them down based on human beliefs in the supremacy of purity, piety, and perfection.

Your angels will still love you and forgive you, though, as they help you let go of your fear and remember what your Heart and Soul feel like.

LSP18: Teeth-Gnashing and Gnosticism: The Question of Evil Entities

Okay. There's simply no way of getting around these three big questions: (1) Do evil supernatural entities exist? (2) Is there an ongoing battle in Creation between good and evil? and (3) If there is such a battle, do human beings play a significant role in restoring balance to the universe?

My short answers are (1) No; (2) No; and (3) No.

Although I'm generally supportive of Dr. Alexander's first book, there's one chapter I disagree with from beginning to end. It's Chapter 15 ("The Gift of Forgetting"), in which Dr. Alexander attempts to answer the question of why God allows evil and suffering in the world (i.e. the theodicy question).  I really wish he'd given more thought to this chapter before he decided to include it in his book. It's chockablock full of the damaging, dualistic, overly simplistic Gnostic ideas that have plagued the human-Divine relationship for centuries.

From the core assumptions of Gnosticism many different religious movements have sprouted (including the Qumran sect of Second Temple Judaism; the Persian religion known as Manichaeism; and assorted Christian heresies). At its root, Gnosticism assumes there's something seriously wrong with the world we live in, but if we have the correct secret knowledge ("gnosis" in Greek) we can escape from worldly evil and return to the love that's characteristic of our true home in Heaven. Central to Gnosticism's claims is a belief in a Christ-like Saviour figure who will risk -- or who has risked -- everything to reveal this secret knowledge to human beings.

Jesus was a man, mystic, and healer who knew God so well and trusted God so much that he rejected all the ancient religious ideas about good versus evil and taught something very different. His teachings started with the idea that God gives us full latitude to explore what free will means. Some people choose to follow the path of power and abuse, but there's always the possibility they'll use their free will to choose the other path -- the path of goodness and love and trust in God. If they don't, however, God will forgive them, bring them Home, heal them, and help them understand the free will lessons they experienced. There's no room in Jesus' paradigm for the Devil or Judgment Day or Hell or salvation of the elect. So Jesus' paradigm has never been a very popular idea, even among Christians (strange as that may seem). If you want to get to know God, and feel Divine Love in "the Core," you can't go wrong by following Jesus' teachings on courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion. This figure of the crucified Christ was made in the first half of the 12th century in Germany, and is on display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

Dr. Alexander reveals his sympathy for the Gnostic position throughout Chapter 15. He says, for instance (and I quote), "Small particles of evil were scattered throughout the universe, but the sum total of all that evil was as a grain of sand on a vast beach compared to the goodness, abundance, hope, and unconditional love in which the universe was literally awash" (page 83).

Let's stop the bus right there. "Small particles of evil were scattered throughout the universe"!!??  Really? God is so stupid that God took a watering can and sprinkled evil around the garden of Creation? God is so stupid that God couldn't figure out any way to give us free will as human beings except to introduce seeds of evil into the world we live in (Proof of Heaven, page 83-84)?

Oh, come on!

This particular species of religious tree has been nurtured wherever people have been trying to reconcile the experience of deeply felt Divine Love with the realities of suffering and abuse in the world. Gnostics are the first to loudly trumpet the preeminence of Divine Love and the first to fall back on the myth of "good versus evil" as soon as they're asked to explain why suffering exists in the world.  In my view, the Gnostic answer to the three questions posed here is sloppy, lazy, and not the least bit courageous.

It takes courage and trust to hold fast to God's hand, to look beyond the simple black and white myths of Gnosticism, to open your whole heart, mind, body, and soul to another explanation for suffering besides evil and evil entities. It takes courage to completely let go of all belief systems that preach the existence of supernatural evil as a force in opposition to God. It takes courage to let go of the idea that "we can't truly know good unless we know its polar opposite, evil, so God must allow some evil to exist." This is the old idea, the Materialist idea of cause and effect, the New Age idea that makes no room for the wonder and mystery of Divine Love.

I should say, in closing, that I understand the position Dr. Alexander found himself in when he was writing his book. He was trying to find a logical explanation for suffering that would be accepted by an audience steeped in myths of good versus evil, light versus darkness. I once swallowed this logic myself (to my utter chagrin). However, if Dr. Alexander has to go through what I went through, his angels are gonna kick his ass around the block until he takes what he wrote in Chapter 15 and dumps it in the garbage can.

Good luck to you, Eben!  Call me if you need some help!

Best wishes,
Jen


For Further Reflection:

There's no question that human beings can spin webs of evil unimaginable to the heart of an angel, webs of evil so all-consuming that sometimes the shock waves last for decades, centuries, even millennia. It's natural and normal for us to wonder where such evil comes from. We all want explanations we can understand, because when we have explanations, we can begin the search for solutions.

Newton's third law states that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Most of us assume that Newton's third law applies in metaphysical physics as much as in classical physics. We believe that if we understand the cause of evil, the countervailing reactive force will become clear to us. We also assume the corollary: if pure love exists in the world, it must exist as a response -- an equal and opposite reaction -- to pure evil.

Our human minds find this Materialist approach appealing. After all, it seems eminently logical. It seems highly consistent with the laws of classical physics we've deduced through observation and experience. It suits our human preference for cause-and-effect justice.

Every major world religion is a response to our mind-based desire for explanations and solutions about evil. We turn to our religious leaders to explain the cause of evil so we can choose appropriate actions to heal and prevent evil.

While many of the healing actions appear similar from religion to religion (e.g. be kind, be merciful, be hospitable), the explanations for the causes of evil appear on the surface to differ widely. Christianity, Islam, and some branches of Judaism rely heavily on theories about evil entities. Buddhism, and the older traditions from which it sprang, preach the inescapable laws of karma. Dig deeper, though, to the tap roots of these religions, and you'll find a common link: the assumption that the true cause of evil is a vast, metaphysical force you can do battle with but never control (unless you're a bona fide saint, Bodhisattva, or Messiah).

Nobody wants to hear that the actual cause of evil lies in the scientific wiring of the human brain. Who's going to put money in the collection plate just to hear the bad news that we, as persons-of-soul, incarnated on purpose to see what it feels like to struggle with free will and seek redemption? That kind of teaching puts all the onus on us as human beings. It means we have to learn to take responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. There's no supernatural force to blame when we screw up and harm our relationships, including our relationship with God. There's no get-out-of-jail free card. There's only ourselves, our families and communities, and our relationship with God.

So yes, your human brain allows you the possibility to choose some very evil, scary paths. But keep in mind that your human brain isn't supernatural. It's 100% temporary biological matter. It isn't going with you when you die. It's staying right here, with the rest of your biological body, to be recycled into the planet as organic and inorganic matter. So whatever evil your brain manages to create during your human lifetime, you can trust that God knows how fix it even if you don't.

God is much smarter about all these questions than we can ever be. Although it's okay for us to be upset and confused about evil on Planet Earth, it's not okay for us to believe that God and God's angels have been negligent in their care of us or the universe.

Don't EVER tell God or your angels that you need protection from evil entities. Asking for protection is a clear indication that you're not ready or willing to trust God.

Instead, ask God for help in understanding how you've been using your own free will to shoot yourself in the foot. Then ask for help in learning how to take control of your own free will.

It's kind of like learning to right a small boat in big waves. It's challenging, but God knows that, with help, you can do it.